Presumptions of reader knowledge in Mark.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Right, I think I did understand your OP position. And we seem to agree that a clumsy, unreflective Mark is an alternative hypothesis to that one.

To the narrow extent we linger in disagreement, it'd be over whether clumsy lack of authorial reflection is the alternative, singular and unique. I think there are at least two other alternatives:

- Mark knew how to tell a story, or if that happens not to leap off of every page,

- A middle way: some of Mark's first audiences plausibly did know who Pilate was, or that Apostle Rocky's real name was Simon, and so forth. For those who didn't already know, they would soon enough. Some might even enjoy the opportunity to learn.

Same with Galatians. Some of Paul's audience plausibly knew about the slapdown in Antioch, and for those who didn't, "But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned" is a great introduction to a dramatic incident about to be recited. It may even be a feature, not a bug, that some in the audience don't know what Paul is talking about, because whatever it is, it sounds interesting, especially when a moment before, Peter and Paul seemed so chummy.

(Sort of like how Jesus being condemned, beaten and now bound adds a certain je ne sais quoi to deciding to ship him off ... somewhere.)

For both authors' audiences, the chosen path works for those who already know and doesn't much distress anybody else; go for it.

[Ben C. Smith]

Right, I think I did understand your OP position. And we seem to agree that a clumsy, unreflective Mark is an alternative hypothesis to that one.

To the narrow extent we linger in disagreement, it'd be over whether clumsy lack of authorial reflection is the alternative, singular and unique. I think there are at least two other alternatives:

- Mark knew how to tell a story, or if that happens not to leap off of every page,

- A middle way: some of Mark's first audiences plausibly did know who Pilate was, or that Apostle Rocky's real name was Simon, and so forth. For those who didn't already know, they would soon enough. Some might even enjoy the opportunity to learn.

I am mostly fine with your "middle way." I also think that Mark knew how to tell a story, but telling a story would, to me, imply the usual storytelling reason for not qualifying Pilate and Simon upon their introductions to the plot line. "Mark knew how to tell a story" and "Mark expected his readers to know who Pilate and Simon were" are, therefore, to me, much the same thing.

Same with Galatians. Some of Paul's audience plausibly knew about the slapdown in Antioch, and for those who didn't, "But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to his face, because he stood condemned" is a great introduction to a dramatic incident about to be recited.

Okay, it took me a while to figure out what your point was with Galatians. But, just to be clear, I do not think that "but when Cephas came to Antioch" is exactly the same sort of signifier as "after John had been cast into prison," from the OP, potentially is. I agree that it is striking; but Cephas facing one situation in Jerusalem and quite another in Antioch is the whole point of the narrative in a way that John being imprisoned may not be.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Yes, then, the middle way is good.

I also agree that the situation with John may be a strong example of addressing an audience familiar with a story. Josephus tells us that in real life, John's reputation among the people survived his death for a while. In Mark's story universe, John's disciples are apparently still together after his arrest, told with no details (2:18).

From a craft perspective, UNLESS someone already knew the outcome of the John story, timing the start of Jesus' ministry according to John's arrest would NOT be much of a forward. The cameo appaearance of John's disciples similarly does little to excite interest in John's predicament (he could have been released and is leading his disciples again for all Mark says at that point).

When we finally get the story in chapter 6 as an entr'acte covering the time Jesus' disciples are off on their training mission, there is no reach for suspense. The very first thing we hear is that John died (6:14). Now, flashback is a fine stoytelling technique, but that a master like Mark is NOT milking the suspense inherent in a fatal drama could support, IMO, that he has an audience of whom a substantial fraction knows the end of this story. Mark levels the playing field, everybody knows that John dies, and then highlights what is distinctive in his version: the colorful dance number, the reluctant condemnation, and the shocking desecration of the corpse.

There's nothing like that in Josephus' journeyman "tell, don't show" version.

[Martin Klatt]

[Paul the Uncertain]

Howdy, Matt

We are told in 2:18 that John's disciples are fasting and they are contrasted with Jesus' disciples who are having a party. Next in 2:19-20 we hear why: Théy still have the bridegroom with them, théy will only fast after he is taken away. And that is exactly why John's disciples are fasting, he has been taken away.

For the portion of the audience who already know the story of John, there is no possibility of suspense about the outcome. Verse 2:18 perhaps reassures them that Mark will eventually return to the subject of John, and at a minimum, this portion of the audience does understand that John's disciples are fasting without him, but no more or less so than the Pharisees' disciples who are also fasting at the same time.

2:18 John’s disciples and the Pharisees were fasting, and they came and asked him, “Why do John’s disciples and the disciples of the Pharisees fast, but your disciples don’t fast?”

For whatever portion of the audience who don't already know the story of John, there is no way for them to tell whether or not John has rejoined his disciples from verse 2:18 (above).

Verse 2:19 is Jesus' direct answer to a direct question about his own disciples. Only somebody who already knew the story of John would know at that point that the bridegroom imagery could in some sense also fit John's dsiciples. However, even those of us who know the story of John, and know that John hasn't rejoined his disciples, don't know whether John is dead yet.

The lines can be played as if John is dead, but it isn't obligatory to play them that way. Mark reserves that choice to the discretion of the performer, I think.

The preceding verses do describe a dinner party, but the complaint then was the company Jesus keeps. The fasting is, in my reading, a second and distinct occasion when Jesus is criticized, not a continuation of the first occasion of complaint.

[Martin Klatt]

[Paul the Uncertain]

Mornin', Martin

Yes, I think I got that Jesus' adversaries include the Pharisees, lol. By verse 3:6, even so flickering a bulb as I can understand that much. I've also heard that a common side effect of fasting is feelings of hunger.

The two stories are indeed connected, parts of a larger block of vignettes where Jesus incenses his critics, but they are two stories. The complaints against Jesus are distinct occasions, as will the "grain-picking and healing on the sabbath" complaints be distinct, as was the preceding "forgiving sins" complaint distinct.

I don't see that the Pharisees are showing any concern for John at 2:18. The line alludes to a range of practice, since John was established as an ascetic from the outset and the Pharisees will be depicted as doing religious exercises for show. The critics' line could be rendered "Everybody else is fasting, from those who sincerely fast all the time to those who fast occasionally and then only for effect, so how come your boys aren't?"

On the original topic of writing for the prepared or unprepared audience, and as to "foreboding" as a device. Mark wouldn't be the first writer to aspire that audience members experience more than one performance of the work. That second-time-'round reader-listener will be in a position to pick up on such things as the possible dual significance of verse 2:18, since the second time, the audience member will know that John is at best still in custody. That is, regardless of what they knew about John when they heard-read the work the first time.

But of course we agree that Mark did an outstanding job of weaving all this together, even if we disagree about the course of some specific threads within the weave.

[Martin Klatt]

[Paul the Uncertain]

Now you are twisting what I said.

I don't see where I twisted anything you said. I favor a different interpretation of some of Mark than what you favor. On other parts, we agree.

Par for the course on a discussion board, eh?

[Steven Avery]

There are several junctures in the gospel of Mark at which the author/editor seems to presume previous knowledge, on the part of the reader, of significant parts of the overall storyline.

Very fine thread.

Mark 14:28 (AV)
But after that I am risen,
I will go before you into Galilee.

Mark 16:7 (AV)
But go your way,
tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee:
there shall ye see him, as he said unto you.

Since Mark does not write of this appearance, even in the massively supported traditional ending, it is a reasonable understanding that the appearance is available in an existing writing, at the time of the publication of Mark's Gospel. Note: I place the Gospel in the 40s, YMMV.